This series of essays by Alain Briot could be pretty interesting, though I have to say that so far, I disagree with most of his main points. First of all, photogaphy ain't science. It's a mechanical aspects do represent a form of technology, but that's not science. Science is that thing about observation, hypothesis and repeatable proof; technology is about the wheel and how many spokes it should have. Further, a statement from a trained painter that photography is more technical than painting seems passing strange. The technology of painting is so complex that even very good painters have a hard time with it. Supposedly, you can find small parts of Jackson Pollock paintings on the floor beneath the paintings themselves, because he didn't understand the technology of paint and grounds -- and I think you could make a pretty good argument that almost *nobody* yet fully understands the relationship between paint and grounds. And that's just one tiny aspect of painting. If you are smart and went a good photography school for a year and studied diligently, you'd know just about everything you need to know about the technical aspects of photography to make very good photographs (assuming you have the artistic ability to do that.) Can't say the same of painting; the technical problems are endless. I don't do much math, but assuming that Winsor and Newton produce about 140 different hues of oil color, and that you can often mix as many of three of them without getting mud, how many different combinations would that be, using equal amounts of color for each mixture? Then think about varying amounts of color in each mixture...No, the technology of painting is far more complex than the technology of photography, at least as it applies to the artist. You can be a very good photographer without knowing much about how a chip counts photons, but a painter even controls how photons are absorbed and reflected.

I personally don't think painting and photography have much to do with each other, in an essential artistic way, as opposed to a business way (photography ruined most of the low end portrait business, for example.) Roland Barthes' idea that "the referent adheres" is the essential core of photography; in painting, a referent may not even exist outside the mind.

I, too, think that Mr. Briot's essays might be interesting judging by his previous series. This is obviously a fellow who likes to muse matters of aesthetic theory.

But Briot's first essay of the series , "Art and Science", made me wince. It was a strained, contorted train-of-thought spaghetti bowl of flimsy assertions and weak similes that read more like a high school composition than a well considered essay. It was awful.

I knew Briot was in trouble as soon I read the first paragraph, which was a seminal statement for all that followed. It read:

Quote

Photography consists of two separate elements: art and science. It is through the successful combination of these two elements that the creation of world-class photographs can be accomplished.

No. For starters, photography is not intrinsically an art form, "world-class" or otherwise, as is implied in this paragraph. An insurance adjuster taking pictures of your bashed fender is not seeking self expression. Art is a matter of intention, not a matter of medium. So to be more precise, albeit less rhetorically dramatic, we might restate that paragraph as,

"All photographic processes rely upon science. Using photography for artistic expression must therefore, in effect, amalgamate science with art."

But that's still an awfully lame thesis, isn't it? It just got worse from there as more strands of pasta were mixed into the bowl.

Briot seems to have a problem quite common today: an utter misunderstanding of what "science" means. He misused the word and concept as a prop for his thesis. "Science", as a noun, refers to a contiguous body of knowledge. (Ex: genetics, electronics, et.al.) "Science", as a verb, refers generally to the "scientific method" which is a structured process of discovery through experimentation to build that body of knowledge.

"Technology" is not a synonym for science; it's a different matter altogether. Technology refers to the application of a science. Consequently, all art forms -photography, painting, sculpture, drawing- rely on various technologies, not directly on sciences. But I suppose that might be pedantic.

Here's hoping that Briot's future essays will be somewhat more cooked. We can always use good 10,000 foot essays on photography and its aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual factors.

As a trained scientist I fully agree about the misuse of the terminology. I would describe the technical side of photography as "engineering" myself.

For a good treatise on the art & philosophy of landscape photography, I would strongly recommend David Ward's short but wonderful book, which I commented on here.

I'm a little puzzled about Alain's direction. He seems to have really kicked into high gear on the "educator" front. I appreciate what he writes, and find much value in it - and indeed quite enough to buy some of his stuff - but I do wonder of he is over-extending himself. I'm also a little disapointed that his long overdue article on the business of photography - which subscribers have paid for in advance - seems to be a low priority. Whilst he is erudite and knowledgeable, I can't help but wonder if he might not consider letting his photography speak for itself just a touch more. I don't think anybody would dispute that on that front he is rock solid.

I too, like the commenters above, found much to question in Alain Briot's beginning essay. It was replete with assumptions that are highly challengable.

I have a suspicion that his whole Art + Science thrust is aimed at placing photography on a plane on which it doesn't necessarily exist and attempting to immunize it from the situation that photography has the lowest entry barrier of just about all the Art media. I have commented elsewhere about this. To wit - one's un-tutored Uncle Ned or Aunt Sally has a better chance of taking a great photograph than creating a work of merit/substance in any other medium - think ballet, music, painting*, etc. Look at the recent interest and elevation to Art status of Anonymous photos. Uncle Ned's and Aunt Sally's Master work may not be recognized as such simply because they are not connected to the Arts community. Also they may not have access to the post-processing that can elevate snapshots into Art. The fact that their output may be drugstore-processed 4x6" prints is only a drawback in that they don't have a critical support group touting "ordinary-ness" as a virtue. (Think William Christenberry's Polaroids.)

Much of the photography that is produced and exhibited in Art venues is created somewhat in spite of technology. Artists muddle through and obtain expressive results without much knowledge of the technology, in fact, often through an inadvertent or even willful mis-understanding of technology. Calibration, pristine histograms, etc. are not necessary ingredients. Luck alone may suffice. Luck plus a good eye can increase the odds of repeated success. From that point on, a knowledge of the technology just functions to increase consistency and repeatability, but only in service of luck and a good eye. As we all know, technology alone cannot carry the day and can be applied to the point that it contradicts the results.

I recall hearing the proprietor of an artist's printing service (one which runs Artisans, Epsons, Imageprint, etc. all the "requisites") admit that, when working with artists they ran through lots of paper doing trial and error. Well, doggone!

* although much of the history of painting of the last 50 years has lowered the entry barrier significantly.

I find all these dichotomies between "art" and "science" and "photography" and "art" to be not terribly useful. Science underpins the technical potential of both media - in different ways to be sure - and there can be just as much art in photography as there is in painting - depending on what one means by "art" and whether the person doing the painting or the photographing has the kind of vision and mastery of technique needed to create "art". I'm not going to write a parallel essay on a definition of "art" or the meaning of art in photography - whole books have been written about this and I'm sure many of us have read at least one or several of them. While Alain's first essay was amusing, frivolous, flawed and interesting all at once, let us await the next instalments with open minds.

Semantics aside, the camera is between me and what I want to create, and if I do not understand the technical limitations and requirements of the medium, the camera can actually be a barrier. Even if if I understand the technology, having to stop and think about something technical can derail my train of creative thought.

I have given some thought to the difference between painting and photography. Both have their technical limitations, but in my mind, the technical aspects of photography are much more rigorous. Of course, if my hobby was painting and not photography, I might feel quite differently about that.

* although much of the history of painting of the last 50 years has lowered the entry barrier significantly.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53686\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd say that was debatable. Whilst it may be that pure technique is less valued in recent decades, there is then an underlying assumption that technique == art. The legions of technically competent journeyman portrait or landscape painters that predated the photographic era where not artists, at least not in the strictest sense of the word. Art is about communicating a concept, essentially, through abstract or literal means, but the significant point is that a work of art is multilayered. The concept is the key, not the technique. An example would be Rachel Whiteread's incredibly moving "House" - effectively a plaster cast of the interior of a house, made prior to demolition. The artist had no part in the technique. The casual onlooker just didn't get it, or worse, decided it was rubbish. But at an emotional, and intellectual level, it was very, very powerful.

I have say that I'm pretty sceptical about most photographers who describe themselves as "fine artists". There are some, and I'm sure Alain Briot is one, for whom the term is justified. Michael, I know from personal experience, is certainly at times also within that group. But most are competent, maybe even highly gifted, technicians (I'd classify myself as an incompetent technician, but I have had enough exposure to trained, professional artists to understand what I lack).

The reason I find David Ward's writings so appealing is that he has actually thought a lot about what an artistic process actually means, how it relates to the wider world, and how it is applied to landscape photograpy - an area which has a hard time escaping from the "pretty pictures" trap.

I think that elsewhere, Alain Briot has made a very good job of describing his view of the intersection between photography and the artistic process. In this new article, if you do a global edit on "science" and replace with "technique", I think it reads just fine.

This series of essays by Alain Briot could be pretty interesting, though I have to say that so far, I disagree with most of his main points. First of all, photogaphy ain't science. It's a mechanical aspects do represent a form of technology, but that's not science. Science is that thing about observation, hypothesis and repeatable proof; technology is about the wheel and how many spokes it should have.

This is ridiculous. While it is true that there isn't much "science" involved in the mere act of pressing the shutter release, having a good grasp of the scientific principles of optics, the behavior of photodiodes and A/D converters, and the chemistry of film and developers will go a long way toward enabling one to master the equipment to achieve the desired result, instead of employing blind guesswork and generally being disappointed in the results. And how is the scientific method not applicable to the technical aspects of photography? Much of learning to be a technically proficient photographer can be thought of as using one's technical expertise to formulate a hypothesis regarding what lens and camera settings are appropriate to the task at hand, shooting with those settings (AKA conducting an experiment), and comparing the results obtained to what the hypothesis predicted, then adjusting the hypothesis as necessary based on the results of the shoot (experiment). Given decent quality equipment, the results are testable and repeatable. With a disciplined approach, there's nothing unscientific about the technical side of photography at all.

Quote

Further, a statement from a trained painter that photography is more technical than painting seems passing strange. The technology of painting is so complex that even very good painters have a hard time with it.

...

If you are smart and went a good photography school for a year and studied diligently, you'd know just about everything you need to know about the technical aspects of photography to make very good photographs (assuming you have the artistic ability to do that.) Can't say the same of painting; the technical problems are endless. I don't do much math, but assuming that Winsor and Newton produce about 140 different hues of oil color, and that you can often mix as many of three of them without getting mud, how many different combinations would that be, using equal amounts of color for each mixture? Then think about varying amounts of color in each mixture...No, the technology of painting is far more complex than the technology of photography, at least as it applies to the artist. You can be a very good photographer without knowing much about how a chip counts photons, but a painter even controls how photons are absorbed and reflected.

This is also ridiculous. A year of dedicated study of photography will indeed ground you fairly well in the basics of operating a camera competently (getting focus and exposure correct), but when you start throwing in things like lighting and the vagaries of different types of photography (shooting food is not the same as shooting a horse show, which is not the same as shooting a wedding, which is not the same as shooting artistic landscapes), truly mastering all aspects of photography takes a lifetime.

And given the fact that most color print processes can duplicate the range of colors found in a painting with only 4 to 8 inks, your example of 140 paint colors complicates the issue unnecessarily. Painting with a specific color is no more difficult than photographing and reproducing that color; given the difficulties many people have with color management, one could make a fairly convincing case that the photographer has a more difficult path to follow than the painter.

Quote

I personally don't think painting and photography have much to do with each other, in an essential artistic way, as opposed to a business way (photography ruined most of the low end portrait business, for example.) Roland Barthes' idea that "the referent adheres" is the essential core of photography; in painting, a referent may not even exist outside the mind.

This is also quite off base. The basic idea of both photography and painting is to express something visually--an idea, an emotion, or perhaps a record of the appearance of a person, place, or thing. Both disciplines can be used to create a very literal representation of something (although photography can do so somewhat more conveniently than painting), and both can be employed to create images that are far removed from from "reality". The end product of both disciplines is a static, two dimensional image that is generally interpreted as representing a single moment in time. THe only real difference between photography and painting is the process between the concept and the finished product.

"If you do a global edit on "science" and replace with "technique", I think it reads just fine."

Doesn't art make use of technique? And if so, wouldn’t titling the series "Art & Technique" be confusing the issue?

And, as an example, aren't certain, if not most, reviews of lenses done scientifically? A number of reviewers may be insulted if they are told that such reviews are not scientific when they aim at making use of facts, facts, and only facts.

And aren't those who purchase lenses based on these reviews making a decision informed by scientific facts?

And isn't profiling a printer a science? And aren't many photographers profiling their own printers and studying the science of color management?

Or is all this not science? And if it is not science, what is it if not art?

I agree with Jonathan. I think the posts above are being unnecessarily pedantic regarding use of the term science. Here I use “science” to mean an understanding of the principles which explain the physical world. Scientific principles are both deterministic and objective. They apply the same way for everyone, whether you believe them or not. There is little need for science in literature. However, a photographer ignorant of the principles of optics, color, and exposure (time, aperture, and ISO) is lost.

As for Jonathan, unfortunately I must tell Rummy to cancel your Army tour since leaving this forum without the benefit of your well reasoned input presents more of a national security risk than the additional security you can provide as an Army of one. Think about it. Is there anything more disheartening to the morale of a nation then a bunch of bad photos? Sorry Jonathan. You are hereby ordered to put the M-16 down and pickup the 1Ds.

"And aren't those who purchase lenses based on these reviews making a decision informed by scientific facts?"

No. Making an informed purchase based on a review is not "doing science"

And isn't profiling a printer a science? And aren't many photographers profiling their own printers and studying the science of color management?"

No. Profiling a printer is not doing science anymore than repairing a flat tire is doing science. (Let's see, I'll do this experiment to see if placing a plug in the hole and filling the tire with air will restore its functionality. Eureka! Call the American Journal of Physics!) Studying color management (which may be a craft, not a science) is not doing science.

THe only real difference between photography and painting is the process between the concept and the finished product.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53697\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, this part we agree on, Jonathon. Just like the only difference between a raft and a lunar lander is the process between the concept and the finished product; I mean, hey, they both take you somewhere.

Technique and technology are not science, and to think that making the distinction is pedantic demonstrates a thorough misunderstanding of the differences. Understanding optics -- studying a physics text -- does not make you a scientist, it makes you a student. I don't want to sound like a jerk here, but the differences between science and technology are critical, and Mr. Briot doesn't seem to understand them. Think: science on this hand, engineering on the other. People may cross-over, but the root concepts don't.

As for the idea that a few inks can reproduce color in a painting, again, I really don't want to seem like a jerk, but that concept is laughable -- ask any pro who works for a museum, trying to get the colors right. My example of Winsor and Newton colors was not pulled out of thin air: and if you look at references on paintings, you'll find whole treatises just on color, and where it comes from, and how to use it, and how even to use the texture of oil color to pick up highlights...

I don't have a problem with photography. I like it. I just think it's distinct from painting is essential ways -- not better or worse, just distinct, and it sure as hell is not less technical.

As for the idea that a few inks can reproduce color in a painting, again, I really don't want to seem like a jerk, but that concept is laughable -- ask any pro who works for a museum, trying to get the colors right.

So explain how it is that commercial and fine art photographers are able to match colors in their prints for the most demanding corporate clients using printing processes that use only 4-8 ink colors. What you're calling "laughable" is done every single day, and it seems to work quite well. Setting gamut issues to the side for a moment, are you seriously proposing that painings in general cannot be accurately color matched without using hundreds of ink colors?

"Studying color management (which may be a craft, not a science) is not doing science."

I trust that GretagMc Beth, Chromix, Color Vision, X-Rite, Epson, ColorByte and numerous other companies involved in color management will be delighted that you are setting them straight on the exact nature of their endeavors.

So explain how it is that commercial and fine art photographers are able to match colors in their prints for the most demanding corporate clients using printing processes that use only 4-8 ink colors. What you're calling "laughable" is done every single day, and it seems to work quite well. Setting gamut issues to the side for a moment, are you seriously proposing that painings in general cannot be accurately color matched without using hundreds of ink colors?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=53711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have to demur here. The matching of color in printed materials is an approximate process and one shouldn't give the impression that there are slam dunk methods. My wife is frequently disappointed by illustrations in "mail-order" clothing catalogs that do not accurately represent the color of the garment that arrives, in spite of what I am sure is a lot of effort expended to attempt accuracy. As for the reproduction of paintings - I believe that no one-layer printing process can adequately reproduce the effect of underpainting and what it does to the top layer of color - not to mention issues of irridescence and other optical effects in transparent/transluscent layered paint. The aformentioned proprieter of an artist's reproduction printing service feels he is most successful when he or his staff works with an artist to "achieve a result better (my emphasis, I might read 'different') than the original".

This sub-topic is drifting a bit from the original thrust - but this should give Alain Briot some sense that subsequent articles in his series will be read by an active rather than passive audience.

My wife is frequently disappointed by illustrations in "mail-order" clothing catalogs that do not accurately represent the color of the garment that arrives, in spite of what I am sure is a lot of effort expended to attempt accuracy.

That means nothing. There are still a lot of graphic artists and printing establishments who don't even know what color management is; they don't even use Adobe Gamma, and if you ask them for a printer profile so you can soft proof to their press, they look at you like you have cockroaches crawling from your eye sockets. I've dealt with quite a few of these outfits, some of which print books and catalogs, signs and even photo enlargements, and certainly ought to know better. Most mail order catalogs are generally printed by the lowest bidder; certainly not always the one with the best color management practices.

Texture aside, color matching is fairly easy to do to a high degree of accuracy if one uses a decent spectrophotometer to profile one's gear. This is particularly true when matching text color to a specific item; you can use the spectrophotometer to measure the color of the item and then export that color to Photoshop in RGB or CMYK, and if you've profiled the printer with the same spectro, the color match can be close enough to be startling when you place a print next to the original object. I've done this a few times, so I'm speaking from experience here.

Color matching isn't nearly as approximate as you claim if you use good quality cameras, monitors, printers, and calibration equipment, and use good measurement and calibration practices when profiling.

The best, highest-level art books don't claim to match color precisely, because it can't be done (yet.) I know there are all kinds of color measuring tools and so on, but I also know that you can't perfectly match the colors in paintings. You can come close on some, but you don't get the cigar for getting close. As to the point about matching fabrics, we're not dealing here with people who don't know about color matching -- with high-end catalogs, we're talking about the best catalog pros and fashion shooters doing the work, and you'll still see warnings that the color is not precise.

That is, after all, what the whole term "out of gamut" was invented to express, when it comes to photography and color matching. Is there ANY photographic color set that will match all visible colors, all at once?

This discussion has grown a bit more testy than I intended when I started it. I like the idea of these essays, and think this kind of discussion has been missed on the LL; it gets a little bit tiresome for the non-technically oriented to read even more articles about bit depth. I personally look forward to further essays by Alain.

That is, after all, what the whole term "out of gamut" was invented to express, when it comes to photography and color matching. Is there ANY photographic color set that will match all visible colors, all at once?

No, "out of gamut" refers to a color that is brighter, darker, and/or more saturated than the inkset can reproduce, not a color within the gamut that is not reproduced sufficiently accurately. There is a significant difference between "out of gamut" and inaccurate color matching.

Jonathan's distinction is correct, but "out of gamut" poses an additional color matching challenge for those colors that are out of gamut - we vary rendering intents and do a number of other things to improve matching in these situations.